Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grapples with expanded hours, event caps and noise monitoring proposed for Shenandoah Speedway
Summary
Commissioners spent extensive time debating proposed Speedway amendments — expanded hours, more event days, and new noise-testing approaches — with neighbors citing recorded 88.4 dB readings and health impacts and the applicant arguing the track brings economic benefit.
The Page County Planning Commission devoted several hours on June 9 to proposed amendments to the Shenandoah Speedway special use permit, with commissioners, staff, the applicant's representative and dozens of residents debating hours of operation, numbers of event days, and how to measure and enforce noise.
Staff presented a side-by-side comparison of the 2007 and 2011 permits and the applicant's requested amendments. Among the key changes requested by the applicant were expanded facility hours (applicant-requested motorsports hours Monday'Saturday 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. in one formulation), larger windows for practice/testing, and a request to increase allowable event days (the applicant requested up to 50 event days versus prior caps cited at 32 in 2007/2011). The applicant also proposed numeric noise thresholds (applicant language included peaks up to 90 dBA at the property line, with higher thresholds for brief peaks up to 96 dBA) and asked for flexibility on administrative site-plan adjustments.
Neighbors and some commissioners pushed back on the proposed changes. Joe Soltis told the commission he suffers from "neurological and cardiological conditions" and said loud track noise forced him to leave his property on multiple occasions; Darwin Hurst told commissioners the Page County sheriff recorded 88.4 decibels at a property about 0.25 mile from the track on Sept. 30, 2023. "We recorded 88 decibels on our property," one resident said. Several residents and commissioners said long-standing enforcement has been inconsistent and asked for clearer monitoring and enforceable thresholds.
Commissioners and staff discussed technical differences between peak A-weighted decibel measures and DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level) and whether to rely on DNL as a management tool. One commissioner framed DNL as a "sound budget" that can be measured continuously to allow an operator to manage annual noise exposure; others argued DNL and instantaneous peaks both needed guardrails. The commission asked staff to distribute all noise-study documentation (original 2006 study, a 2007 memorandum and subsequent updates referenced in the record) and to pursue expert advice before finalizing numeric thresholds or a permit duration.
Lighting and other facility standards were also discussed; staff noted county counsel is reviewing proposed lighting language and that the commission has authority to set stricter conditions than code. Commissioners did not adopt final language at the meeting and directed staff to gather the outstanding noise reports and legal guidance for a follow-up session.
